[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 110 (Wednesday, July 30, 1997)]
[House]
[Pages H6312-H6320]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
WAIVING POINTS OF ORDER AGAINST CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 2015,
BALANCED BUDGET ACT OF 1997
Mr. SOLOMON, from the Committee on Rules, submitted a privileged
report (Rept. 105-218) on the resolution (H. Res. 202) waiving points
of order against the conference report to accompany the bill (H.R.
2015) to provide for reconciliation pursuant to subsections (b)(1) and
(c) of section 105 of the concurrent resolution on the budget for
fiscal year 1998, which was referred to the House Calendar and ordered
printed.
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 202 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 202
Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be
in order to consider the conference report to accompany the
bill (H.R. 2015) to provide for reconciliation pursuant to
subsections (b)(1) and (c) of section 105 of the concurrent
resolution on the budget for fiscal year 1998. All points of
order against the conference report and against its
consideration are waived. The conference report shall be
considered as read. The conference report shall be debatable
for ninety minutes equally divided and controlled by the
chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on the
Budget.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon] is
recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield 30
minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Moakley] pending which
I yield myself such time as I might consume. Mr. Speaker, concerning
the time just yielded to the minority, all time yielded is for debate
purposes only.
Mr. Speaker, this rule is the standard rule for consideration of a
conference report on reconciliation legislation. All points of order
are waived against the bill and its consideration. The rule further
provides that the conference report shall be considered as read.
Finally, the rule provides 90 minutes of general debate equally
divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority members of
the Committee on the Budget.
Mr. Speaker, I would also point out that we have extended the debate
time from the customary 1 hour to 90 minutes in order to maximize the
time for the House to debate this very historic agreement. And when I
state ``very historic agreement,'' Mr. Speaker, I want to heap praise
on the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kasich], chairman of the Committee on
the Budget, who has brought to this floor something that many of us
have worked so hard for over all these years. And it could not have
happened without the leadership of the gentleman from Ohio [Mr.
Kasich], certainly his committee, and the staff of the Committee on the
Budget.
Mr. Speaker, on July 20, 1969, Neal Armstrong and the crew of Apollo
11 made their famous leap for mankind onto the surface of the Moon.
Later that same year, the Federal Government recorded its first
balanced budget in a decade, an actual budget surplus of $300 million.
Both are milestones, Mr. Speaker, because the budget has not been
balanced since that time back in 1969.
In fact, in 1997, the Government spent over $6,000 for every man,
woman, and child in America. And that is up from $500 in 1960. Each
person's share of that national debt is more than $14,500, and that is
up from $1,300 in 1960. This goes to show us what has happened over the
years.
And even worse, the Federal Government is three times larger than in
1960, and the tax burden is unconscionable on the American people,
particularly middle-class American people, who make up the real
backbone of this Nation.
Today, Mr. Speaker, this Republican Congress and President Clinton
will stem the tide of this rising sea of red ink, and it will stop the
growth of Government. Today, the Republican Congress will deliver
America's working families the first balanced budget in a generation.
Mr. Speaker, as my colleagues recall, in 1994, when the American
people gave Republicans control of the people's House, we pledged to
balance the budget. Today, we deliver on that promise.
{time} 1215
Mr. Speaker, this body has debated balanced budgets many times over
the last few years, but today's debate is special. It represents a
historic achievement for the future benefit of America's children, for
their families and for the economy of this Nation. For today we do not
just debate a balanced budget, we actually deliver one for the American
people, what they have been asking of this body for so many years now.
This endeavor proves that Congress, working with the administration,
can achieve common goals without compromising fundamental principles,
showing the American people that we can work together to solve
problems, and the American people are applauding this every day now
since we came to this agreement.
Mr. Speaker, I am also proud to inform the American people that our
democratic process, something that has been maligned in recent years,
is working. This democratic process, even with the Congress and with a
President of opposing parties has produced a bipartisan balanced budget
agreement that cuts taxes for the first time in 16 years, that
preserves Medicare and protects it from bankruptcy into the 21st
century, that slows the growth of total Federal spending to 3 percent a
year. That is no easy task. And that shifts power, money and influence
away from Washington and to the people in the States and communities.
Mr. Speaker, while this is a bipartisan agreement, it is useful to
recognize just how far we have come. Just 4 years ago, this Congress
under a Democrat majority passed the largest tax increase in the
history of the United States of America. Today we cut the tax burden on
American families for every single working American in this country.
Just 4 years ago, Mr. Speaker, this Congress expanded new entitlement
programs and they increased spending by tens of billions of dollars.
What is different today? Today we slow the growth of entitlement
spending. Today we increase budget enforcement, and today we actually
reduce Federal spending to 18.9 percent of the Gross Domestic Product
by the year 2002. That will be the first time since 1974, 25 years ago,
that spending has fallen below 20 percent of the GDP.
Mr. Speaker, just 4 years ago this Congress passed increased
Government spending packages. Today we make the Federal Government
smaller, allowing the free market to provide the stimulus for the
economy to create long-term job growth. Mr. Speaker, what a difference
a Republican Congress has made to the economy.
Since the 1994 election, the Dow Jones Industrial Average has more
than doubled from 3,900 points to 8,100 points, interest rates have
dropped from 8 percent to 6 percent, and 6.4 million new jobs have been
created. The economy is growing because taxes, spending, and the
Government are not growing.
But, Mr. Speaker, we are not here today to only look at the past or
even the present but to the future of this great country. The balanced
budget we debate here today is built on a solid foundation of
programmatic and economic assumptions, a foundation that will generate
benefits to American working families for years to come. This is a
package that will keep on delivering financial relief to families and
to businesses in the form of lower taxes, lower interest rates, higher
job growth and a stronger economy, and we are locking it all into law
so that it has to happen.
For example, Mr. Speaker, in my district in upstate New York, a
balanced budget will significantly enhance the opportunities of working
families to care for their children and to help their communities. Alan
Greenspan, greatly respected by both sides of the aisle,
[[Page H6313]]
Democrats and Republicans alike, and by the American people, he is the
Chairman of the Federal Reserve, and he has testified that a balanced
budget will lead to lower interest rates, as much as 2 percent lower on
home mortgages, on family farms, on auto loans, on student loans. For
the average homeowner in my district, before even calculating in the
benefits of the cuts in the capital gains tax, a 2 percent lower
interest rate on a home mortgage as a result of a balanced budget would
save that family over $130 a month. That is $130 more a month to send a
kid to college, to buy groceries or to pay for child care, which is so
badly needed today in the pockets of the American people. It means more
investment in the local community, a stronger local economy, and higher
wages.
Under these circumstances, Mr. Speaker, these hardworking families
will do more in 1 year to help the less fortunate, the young and the
old, than this Congress could do under a banner of compassion in an
entire decade. All these benefits result merely from Congress
fulfilling its moral obligation to balance this budget year in and year
out.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, I would like to make one final observation.
During this debate today, many of my friends on the other side of the
aisle will assert that Republicans are only interested in helping the
so-called wealthy in America. Mr. Speaker, let me state for the record
right now that I plead guilty to that charge. I believe that a growing
economy helps all of America's families, for it was not a Republican
President but it was President John F. Kennedy that said ``a rising
tide lifts all boats.''
Furthermore, and this is so terribly important, a recent NASDAQ
report summarized in a recent Los Angeles Times story found the
following facts. These are facts, these are not Republican rhetoric,
these are facts out of NASDAQ:
Fifty-five percent of the stocks in America today are held by
household families. Fifty-five percent. That means middle class America
holds 55 percent of the stock today.
Forty-seven percent of all investors are women. Fifty-five percent of
all investors are under the age of 50. And 10 percent of all investors,
and this is so terribly important, have started to invest within the
last 10 years.
These numbers do not even include all of those who have their
pensions invested in the stock market or in mutual funds, which is the
case for many older Americans. These so-called wealthy people are
middle class working families that know that a balanced budget, lower
taxes, and a smaller Government mean higher wages, more jobs, and a
stronger economy.
That is really what we are all here on this floor to try to do. That
is why I urge all Members to join these American families in supporting
the balanced budget we have here before us today. It is good for
families, it is good for America. The future will be better because of
what we do here today.
And, Mr. Speaker, what we do here today is what the Republican Party
stands for, and that is cutting taxes for all working Americans, every
single one of them, cutting runaway entitlement spending, saving
Medicare from bankruptcy. But most importantly, Mr. Speaker, we are
here today balancing the budget and shrinking the size and the power of
the Federal Government.
Mr. Speaker, I have never been so proud to be a Republican Member of
Congress for what we are doing here today.
Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman
from Georgia [Mr. Gingrich], the Speaker of the House.
Mr. GINGRICH. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.
Mr. Speaker, I just want to say to my good friend from Massachusetts,
I was concerned by his earlier concerns. I went back and checked. The
gentleman was correct. When we initially announced that the entire bill
was available at http://speakernews.house.gov in fact it was not all
fully uploaded. I waited to make sure the entire bill was totally
loaded. It is now available not just to any Member of the House, not
just to all the congressional staffs who I hope are watching this
debate, all of whom can access it simultaneously without having to
xerox it, but in addition it is available to every citizen in this
country and anyone worldwide on the Internet.
As the gentleman knows, we are still having growing pains learning
how to be in the information age, but we have now made this available
to every citizen in the country. We are going to test this afternoon
when we file the tax bill and see how long it takes to totally upload
the tax bill for the same process. Sometime late this afternoon, every
citizen in the country, without a lobbyist, without a trade
association, without any payment, will have access to the tax bill in
full. I do thank the gentleman for bringing it to our attention. We are
still learning, but I did want to make that available.
By the way, if I might, this is the last page. We printed it out,
because my good friend had pointed out earlier that he could not get
them all printed out.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I hope the Speaker will autograph it for
me.
Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to hear that from the Speaker and I am
glad that all the citizens of America have this now. If the Republican
Party would just allow them a few hours to read it, I think the public
service would really be done.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon], the
chairman of my committee, my dear friend, for yielding me the customary
half-hour, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, again I want to begin by registering my frustration at
being expected to vote on this very enormous bill that was dropped
outside my door at 3:30 this morning. It came the same time as the
milkman. But I am not exactly sure if my Republican colleagues drafted
the bill we expected them to draft, and I suspect that no one else is
sure either. This bill has come to the floor with an unprecedented
bipartisan compromise in cooperation. It is a shame that it ended today
with the martial law rule. Members should have the chance to carefully
consider this bill before voting on it.
Mr. Speaker, although this bill will balance our budget in the short
term, I do not believe it gets us where we need to be in the long term.
I know that quite a few of my colleagues will support this bill, and
there are very good reasons to do so, but I at this present time
cannot. It squeezes funding for education, training, health programs,
and school construction, and I do not believe that it should.
One particular problem for me, Mr. Speaker, is the hit that the
hospitals will have to take. We in Massachusetts are very fortunate to
have some of the world's greatest hospitals and research facilities.
They already bear an enormous share of the financial burden of our
health care problems, but this bill will cut Medicare spending by $115
billion by reducing payments to these very same hospitals and the
doctors that serve in them. It also cuts Medicaid spending by $13
billion by reducing payments to these same hospitals that serve large
numbers of poor people, like our Boston City Hospital. Mr. Speaker, the
hospitals in my district are already facing enormous budget crunches.
They cannot stand it anymore.
This bill also cuts $4.8 billion from Federal employees' retirement
programs over the next 5 years. Federal employees work just as hard as
those in the private sector, but because they work in public service
rather than the private sector, they are going to be penalized.
Mr. Speaker, this bill also makes changes that will cut $1.8 billion
in student loans and $1.8 billion from housing programs. It reduces
section 8 adjustments and replaces the FHA foreclosure relief program.
Another provision in this bill which many of my colleagues may not be
aware of is an increase in the public debt limit to $5.95 trillion.
Mr. Speaker, thanks to the Democrats in Congress and the Clinton
administration, this bill is a lot better than it was. It expands
health care for children, although not enough. It restores Supplemental
Security Income and Medicare benefits to legal immigrants. It also
contains funding for States to help welfare recipients find jobs.
Again, Mr. Speaker, not enough.
There are good reasons to support this bill, and I understand why
many of my colleagues will do so. But as I said,
[[Page H6314]]
because of those other matters, I just cannot at this time. For the
sake of our hospitals, for the sake of our students, for the sake of
our housing programs, I cannot support the bill.
I cannot support a bill that will hurt Massachusetts hospitals as
much as this one will. I cannot support a bill that, although it
provides much needed money to help poor children get health insurance,
it provides the money in the form of block grants which may or may not
be used for that purpose.
There are some very good provisions in this bill that I very much
support, and I congratulate my colleagues for their hard work on this
bill. I am relieved to see many of the education issues and the food
stamp problem have been taken care of.
{time} 1230
And although I strongly suspect that this bill will pass and that our
President will sign it, I simply, as I said, cannot support it. So I
urge my colleagues to defeat the previous question in order to increase
debate time to 3 hours.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
South Carolina [Mr. Spratt], the ranking member on the Committee on the
Budget.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts for
yielding this time to me.
Mr. Speaker, I intend to vote for this conference report, and I am
satisfied, and even proud, of the outcome, but I cannot vote for the
rule in this case, and I want to explain why.
I think it is being brought to the floor, this conference agreement,
with unseemly haste for something so serious and so far-reaching.
I was here until midnight last night. The Democratic staff of the
Committee on the Budget were here until after 2:30. Most of that time
of our staff on the Committee on the Budget was spent trying to prepare
reports so that we could tell Members on our side from our inside
perspective as the Committee on the Budget just what is in this
conference agreement and what is not, what compromises have been cut,
what deals have been done that they need to know about before they make
their decision to vote, and it was a frustrating, sometimes fruitless,
effort to call different places on the Hill and try to find out what
was in the conference report because we did not have a copy of the
conference report.
The staff left at 2:30, the conference report was filed at 3:20 this
morning, it was not until we got back to work this morning, just an
hour before the House convened that we found the conference report on
our doorstep. We finished posthaste the reports so that we could
deliver it to Members on our side. They got it at 10 o'clock this
morning, just before the House convened to take up this matter.
Now there are strong reasons for having a certain delay. The rules of
the House, the rules of the House longstanding, call for a 3-day
layover for conference reports, 24-hour layover for rules which have
been waived, but 3 days for a conference report, and there are good
reasons for that. Conference reports are the last station on the track.
We are making law. There are no more opportunities on our part to
correct mistakes, to add something, change something, to perfect a
piece of legislation.
Furthermore, in the House we have what in the State legislature they
call free conference powers virtually. As everybody knows, conference
reports are hammered out behind closed doors. The conferees make deals,
cut compromises, go out of scope all the time, and the rule waives any
points of order for going out of scope. And my colleagues will find
plenty of things in this conference report, I am sure, which are out of
scope, one in the House bill and one in the Senate bill, that have been
concocted by the conferees.
That is why the longstanding rules of this House have provided 3 days
for Members to see what is in it, sauce and blow it, weigh it and come
to a deliberate decision as to whether or not they would support it.
And then when the matter finally comes to the floor, there ought to
be ample time to discuss something so far-reaching as this because this
is not just an ordinary conference agreement, this is probably the
single most important piece of legislation that this Congress will
adopt in the 105th Congress. Yet we are going to take it up in an hour
and a half. The Senate provides for 10 hours of debate, 10 hours on the
tax reconciliation bill, 10 hours on the spending reconciliation bill.
We have an hour and a half, and I have Members over here pulling at my
coattails because they want to say something.
Mr. Speaker, they want to explain why they are voting for it or why
they are voting against it; they want to say they are in favor of this.
That is the way the House operates. They want to have a real debate,
and we will not be able to have it with the truncated time that has
been allowed for this particular bill.
This is too fast a track for legislation so serious. It should not be
railroaded against this House. We should vote against the previous
question.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy].
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I have heard the chairman
of the Committee on Rules quote my uncle, President Kennedy, saying
that a rising tide lifts all boats. I would say that in this tax bill
what we have is a tax cut that will raise the yachts in places like the
Ocean Reef Club and other Republican strongholds of this country, but
the people that own the little bass boats of America, the only rise
they are going to get is when they go up on the rocks as a result of
the cuts that are going to be created in order to pay for the wonderful
tax cuts that are contained in this bill.
Look, the Republicans shut down the Congress of the United States
last year because of our protests about the level of budget cuts
contained in terms of the Medicare budget. This bill, make no mistake,
my colleagues, this bill contains the exact same level of Medicare cuts
as last year's bill did. That is the hidden truth that we are not
seeing everybody who is walking around, giving each other high fives
and whooping and hooping down at the White House or on the floor or off
in the Halls of the Congress saying what a wonderful thing this is.
Everybody is all talking about how we are going to balance the budget
of this country.
Mr. Speaker, we are balancing the budget in the most unbalanced
fashion one can possibly imagine, lining the pockets of the wealthiest
Americans, pretending to working people that they are going to get a
tax cut. They get a tax cut. Seventy-five percent of these tax benefits
go to the top 20 percent of the American people. It is a sham.
In order to pay for it what are we going to do? We have cut the
housing budget by 25 percent, we are cutting the homeless budget by 25
percent, we come back, we are going to get rid of the fuel assistance
program. They say they are going to do so much to help out education,
but we come back, they are going to cut almost 20 percent of the entire
research and development accounts of the Government. They say before
the American people this year we are going to put 6 percent more into
the National Institutes of Health budget in order to look after women's
health and breast cancer research, but then we are going to come back
somehow, according to these numbers, we are going to come back and cut
20 percent out of that same budget over the course of the next 5 years.
This budget is a sham, and we ought to have the truth about the
budget come out before we are forced to vote on it.
This rule that we are going to be forced to vote on gives us 15
minutes, 15 minutes to discuss what is in fact in this bill, and I say,
``Take your 15 minutes and stuff it, stuff it the same place you ought
to stuff this tax bill, stuff it the same place you ought to stuff
these spending cuts. It's not right to force spending cuts on the
working families in order to provide a tax cut to the rich.''
Get rid of this tax bill.
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I am somewhat surprised by the gentleman from
Massachusetts in his delivery.
As my colleagues know, I was very proud to have been a John F.
Kennedy Democrat, I was very proud of it, and I was for many years
until the Democratic Party drifted away from the
[[Page H6315]]
principles of John F. Kennedy and Jerry Solomon, in my eyes, and that
is why Ronald Reagan and I switched parties and became Republicans,
because we really believe that the people back home know better than
the people here in Washington.
Let me just take one more second to say I cannot believe the
gentleman would tell these people to stuff it. The gentleman from South
Carolina [Mr. Spratt] a very, very distinguished Member from the
gentleman's side, the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Bonior], a liberal
Member from the gentleman's side, the gentleman from California [Mr.
Fazio], the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Stenholm], the gentleman from
Michigan [Mr. Dingell], the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Kildee]; this
reads like Who's Who in the Democratic Party, the gentleman from New
Jersey [Mr. Payne], the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Oberstar], the
gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Evans], the gentleman from New York [Mr.
Rangel]; Mr. Speaker, Charlie Rangel signing this conference report and
voting for this conference report. I do not think they are going to
stuff it, the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Levin], and on the other
side of the aisle Senators Lautenberg, Sarbanes, Senator Moynihan from
my State, very, very respected Democrat, and Senator Rockefeller are
going to vote for this conference report that the gentleman says,
``Stuff it.''
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SOLOMON. I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from
New York for yielding briefly.
I would just point out that the gentleman probably had a long list of
Democrats that voted for the 1981 budget cuts that in 1982 wished they
had not, and probably a lot of Republicans felt the same way.
The truth of the matter is that for the gentleman from New York to
use President Kennedy on this House floor indicating that he would
support the kind of cuts in terms of the programs that are necessary to
fund a tax cut that is largely going to the wealthy is, I think,
reshaping the history of what President Kennedy stood for when he cut
taxes in 1960.
Mr. SOLOMON. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, I not only think John
F. Kennedy would be voting, and supporting and bringing this bill to
the floor, I think Ted Kennedy, whose picture is here with the
President yesterday in the New York Times applauding this legislation,
would also be voting for it.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Florida [Mr.
Goss], a very distinguished member of the Committee on Rules and
someone who has led the fight for balanced budget and fiscal
responsibility in this House for many years.
(Mr. GOSS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Glens Falls, NY [Mr.
Solomon] for yielding me the time and I share his enthusiasm. I rise in
strong support of this appropriate rule, and I believe his observation
about the tide is correct.
Mr. Speaker, it has been nearly 30 years since Congress has balanced
the Nation's books, a generation and a half that is, of spending money
we do not have, running up the tab on our children and our
grandchildren, avoiding tough decisions, and Americans are tired of
that. So today and tomorrow and the day after we are going to be
putting in place the final details of the first real achievable
balanced budget in 30 years. The magnitude of the change in the
direction this legislative accomplishment represents is very, very
great indeed. Consider that just 4 years ago the White House and
Democratic majority here pushed through the largest tax increase, the
largest tax increase in American history, just 4 years ago. What a
difference 4 years and a new majority can make.
I know some will be skeptical that may be just another promise that
we cannot keep here, and I do not blame people who wish to withhold
their full exuberance about this until the ink is dry and the effects
of this historic agreement are felt across the land. But the bills we
vote on in the coming hours and days hold more than a promise to
balance the budget and bring about tax relief for American families.
These bills are the implementation of the promises, and there is
accountability built in for all of us. We cannot run, we cannot hide,
we will be here, and we will be judged.
As chairman of a legislative and budget process subcommittee, I want
to take a second to point out to Members that this bill includes a
series of clean up provisions in our budget enforcement rules,
including extending the pay as you go and spending limit procedures. Of
course we know additional work is needed to beef up budget enforcement,
and budget process reform will take place in this Congress as has been
promised.
Mr. Speaker, for too long Americans have had to get by with less
while the folks in Washington rolled merrily along taxing and spending
to support the ever growing Federal Government. Look around, my
colleagues will see it. This agreement means tax relief for
individuals, for families with children, for students, for small
businesses, for homeowners, for those with family farms. It brings a
measure of fairness to the system, and it is predicated on the
fundamental belief that Government taxes too much, not too little. We
are getting control over spending under the discretionary side, and we
are shrinking the size and scope of the reach of Government and, man,
is that good news for America.
This legislation takes the first steps toward solving the long term
problems with Medicare, laying the groundwork for us to come together
on a comprehensive plan to rescue the problem for coming generations.
We are expanding choice and benefits for seniors, clamping down on
waste, fraud and abuse, a problem whose vast proportions have made news
in recent days; in fact are in the headlines today. And we are
modernizing the program's payment and care delivery systems. This is a
long overdue down payment on Medicare, and America's current and future
seniors come out the winners.
Mr. Speaker, there are many, many details in this plan, and I am sure
it is still not perfect. I fully expect that the coming days will bring
efforts by those who prefer the status quo of big government, to pick
it apart provision by provision, and indeed we have already started to
hear some of the clamor on the floor today. But we have done the
unthinkable by Washington standards. We have kept our promise to the
American taxpayers, and that is what this is about. We pledge to
balance the budget. We are doing it. We pledge to save Medicare. We are
doing it. And we pledge to cut taxes, and we are doing it.
I cannot think of a single reason to delay this process. It is all
long overdue, it is wanted by the people we represent and work for in
this country. The time is now. Any deviation to go to motions to commit
or other dilatory tactics are just delaying the inevitable. We are
going to give this country the relief this country deserves and wants,
and we are going to do it this week.
Mr. Speaker, I urge support for this rule and for the wonderful
agreement that has been worked out.
{time} 1245
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Maryland [Mr. Hoyer].
Mr. HOYER. I thank the chairman in exile for yielding time to me, Mr.
Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, we promised and we delivered. In August 1981, President
Reagan, when he signed the tax bill of 1981, said that we will balance
the budget as a result of this bill by October 1, 1983. That was the
promise. What was delivered? Four and one-half trillion dollars of new
debt.
Two courageous Presidents looked that debt in the eye and acted. One
was a Republican, George Bush. In 1990, he said the deficit is a
problem, and we must act. He was savaged, savaged by his own party and
by the Speaker of this House.
In 1993, a courageous President with vision said we must confront
this deficit, for this generation and for generations yet to come.
Almost to a person, Republicans rose and said the economy is going to
go into the dumpster, unemployment will rise, inflation will rise, and
deficits will rise.
Mr. Speaker, exactly the opposite happened. Not one Republican had
the courage or the vision to vote for the 1993 bill. But for that bill,
we would not be here this day.
[[Page H6316]]
Mr. Speaker, I intend to support both of these bills. They are not
what I would have written, and perhaps what no Member individually
would have written, but we have collectively come together and we are
going to act. In my opinion, it will be good for people and it will be
good for the economy, which is good for our country and for our people.
But let there be no mistake about what the history of this fight has
been. Bill Clinton said we needed to confront this deficit, but we
needed to do so while investing in our people, in making sure that
average working families were advantaged by this particular piece of
legislation.
We came to grips with that issue, realizing full well that there
would be a political cost, and indeed there was in 1994. There was a
cost, because across this land our candidates were attacked as taxers
and spenders. But in fact, what they did was bring the deficit down for
5 years in a row, and people say the last time it was done was 1969.
That was, of course, following 8 years of Democratic Presidencies
through January of 1969, Mr. Speaker; Democratic leadership, we had a
balanced budget. And again, we are going to have a balanced budget
because of Democratic leadership that has brought the deficit down 5
years in a row, the first time that has happened since before the Civil
War.
I stand to say that I am proud of the fact that I voted for that 1993
bill. We would not be here today but for that. I am proud of the fact
that my President, your President, has led us to a point where we can
balance the budget while investing in America's future and our people.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from New Jersey [Mr. Pallone].
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule because of
the time constraints on debate, but I support the underlying budget
spending bill. The reason is because today Congress is taking a major
step in cutting the number of uninsured children.
Over a year ago Democrats had made this a top priority, while
Republicans were balking at finding a solution. Earlier this year,
while Democrats were leading the charge to reduce the ranks of the 10
million uninsured children, Republicans were questioning the need to
help working families provide for their uninsured children.
It was not until the President's inclusion, after Democrats' urging,
of funding for children's health care in his initial budget that
Republicans realized that resistance would be hopeless. Even then,
though, they had to be dragged to the table. House Republicans pushed a
children's health care block grant program that did not guarantee one
penny to actually insure kids. The Congressional Budget Office
estimated 500,000 kids would be covered and most of the $16 billion in
funding could be drained away by the States for other purposes.
Democrats protested the Republican plan and voted unanimously for a
motion to recommit that would implement the proposal of our health care
task force.
The idea was to attach requirements that States actually use the
money to insure kids through Medicaid or an alternative State health
insurance plan. We insisted as Democrats that the direct services
option, which allowed certain exemptions from using money to insure
kids, be eliminated or severely curtailed. In addition, Democrats
demanded an adequate benefits package for kids.
As the negotiations over the budget continued, Democrats joined in
the series of letters to the budget negotiators urging inclusion of an
additional $8 billion through a cigarette tax, and provisions intended
to insure that all the new funds for kids' health care would supplement
and not supplant current State efforts to provide children with health
coverage.
In the end, Mr. Speaker, the Republicans relented and the bill before
us today includes $24 billion, requires that kids actually be insured
with the money, and caps the direct services option to 15 percent of
the funds.
The benefits package is adequate, in my opinion, and language is
included so States have to spend at least what they do now on kids'
health care.
Mr. Speaker, the kids' health care plan in this bill, in my opinion,
is a major victory for the President and congressional Democrats.
Thanks to Democratic values and perseverance, America's children will
be the winners of this budget agreement.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
California [Mr. Capps].
Mr. CAPPS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the balanced
budget legislation. When I ran for Congress, I pledged to the voters of
my district that I would work to make the House more bipartisan and
solution-oriented. This bill and my support of it is a reflection of
that pledge. It is good for the residents of the central coast of
California, it is good for our country.
I am very happy that we have increased the amount of funding for
children's health care to $24 billion. It is unconscionable that
millions of American children have no health insurance. I also strongly
support the restoration of benefits for millions of legal immigrants
who were callously cut off from disability benefits under last year's
welfare reform bill. Today we are finally treating these individuals
with the dignity they deserve. I urge my colleagues to vote for this
historic and important bill.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Massachusetts [Mr. Tierney].
(Mr. TIERNEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise to discuss not the bill but the rule
before us in this particular case.
Since I came here some 6 months ago or 7 months ago, it seems that
all I hear from the party that said over and over again while it was in
the minority is how it was going to do things better when it became the
majority; in fact, all we hear now is, when they do something that is
totally unconscionable, well, you did it, too, or you did another
version of it.
In fact, that is not a good enough answer for people in this country,
and I do not think people are going to be satisfied that this
deliberative body or this body that is supposed to be deliberative
spent virtually no time debating one of the more important bills that
is going to come out of legislation this year.
The real issue is not whether we have this particular tax cut or this
spending bill this year. There are larger issues in this country, not
the least of which is what is happening to working families and why we
have companies reporting 15 percent profits and 1 percent additional
revenues, and we know the difference is because they are squeezing that
out of American workers.
Those American workers have less health care benefits and they have
less pension contributions, and they are told by employers that they
are going to have the company move to Mexico or they are going to have
replacement workers in if they try too hard to get a raise.
The real question is what does this tax package, what does this
spending bill do for those American workers. And just a few minutes ago
they said, we put it on the Internet, go read 20 inches of material and
find the answer out for the voters. That is not appropriate. The
American people say they want this body to deliberate. They want this
body to know what is in that bill.
It is a darned good thing that I am a nocturnal sort of person,
because since I have gotten here very little that is put on the floor
by the majority is ever put on in the light of day, and very often that
is because I suspect most of what they are putting forward will not
suffer well the light of day.
In fact, this particular bill was delivered at 3:45 in the morning,
and we have the audacity for the chairman of the Committee on Rules to
say, like that is a great thing, like at 3:45 in the morning it was
delivered to the minority member, ranking minority member, which gave
us all plenty of time between 3:45 this morning and now to read 20
inches of documents and debate it and deliver it for the American
people.
That is not conscionable. That is not right. This is not a good rule.
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I suggest to the previous speaker that he follow the
rules of the House, and be a little careful about how he might reflect
on the integrity or character of another Member.
[[Page H6317]]
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Columbus, OH
[Ms. Deborah Pryce], who is a very valued member of the Committee on
Rules, and someone who has been a true advocate of families and
children in this Congress.
Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished chairman of
the Committee on Rules for yielding me this time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise to express my enthusiastic support for this rule
and for the Balanced Budget Act, and to point out to the last speaker,
and to all the body, that we are already 50 percent fairer than the
other party was in their rules in the last time they had control of
this House.
What is exciting this day, Mr. Speaker, is that today Americans in
this country, the earners, the savers, and the taxpayers, the people
who play hard, work hard, take a few risks, strive every day to build a
better future for their families and communities, are about to realize
something for it.
For years, their message to us has been crystal clear. They wanted
Congress to cut the tax burden on Americans. They wanted us to reduce
Government spending and Government size. They wanted us to create new
jobs and opportunities. They wanted us to shift power and influence to
the States and local communities, where creative local solutions could
take the place of broad Federal mandates. Most of all, they wanted us
to balance the budget.
Finally, the message has sunk in. We are relearning the lessons of
the 1980's, when we did cut taxes, when we did restrain Federal
regulation and lower Government spending, because when we did those
things prosperity made a huge comeback. Jobs were created, income
started to rise, and people felt more secure about their economic
futures.
Today we are about to kickstart that economic revolution again.
Imagine that, Mr. Speaker, we will actually balance the budget by the
year 2002, the first time since 1969. That was the year I graduated
from high school. That was the year Neal Armstrong walked on the Moon.
That was a long time ago, Mr. Speaker.
Not only that, we are extending the life of Medicare for 10 years. We
are saving it from bankruptcy, and giving seniors expanded options in
meeting their health care needs.
At the same time, the Balanced Budget Act makes important investments
in people, like the children's health initiative, preventive health
programs, and the new welfare to work program to move welfare
recipients off the public assistance rolls and into the payrolls.
Mr. Speaker, these are just a few of the provisions in this historic
legislation, and I commend the bipartisan negotiators who worked hard
through many long days and nights to bring us to this conference
agreement today.
I especially want to recognize my colleague, the gentleman from
Columbus, OH, Mr. John Kasich for his steadfast leadership in the fight
to achieve a balanced budget over the years. Back in Ohio, we are so
doggoned proud of Chairman Kasich that we could bust. Not only him, but
all the negotiators that came up with this agreement are national
heroes.
Mr. Speaker, we have the opportunity today to begin a new chapter in
our Nation's history. Let us seize it. Let us grasp this once-in-a-
lifetime opportunity. Vote for this rule. Support the conference
report.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Oregon [Mr. DeFazio].
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, let us make no mistake on what we are about
here today; the cuts we are about to adopt today, with precious little
debate, are to finance the tax cuts of tomorrow. There is a direct and
irrefutable relationship. So the cuts in Medicare, the cuts in
veterans' benefits, the cuts in Social Security Administration costs,
are to finance tax cuts tomorrow. Tomorrow perhaps we will get the
debate on the merits of the tax cut.
The point is, earlier the esteemed chairman of the Committee on Rules
responded to my earlier statement saying, well, so the gentleman has
not had time to read the bill. So there is only one copy. Now it is on
the Internet. That is great. But he said earlier, he said, he should
just rely on the judgment of some of his colleagues. Can he not follow
them?
{time} 1300
First off, I doubt that they have had an opportunity to read the
entire bill. And secondly, no, I did not check my brain at the door
when I got elected to Congress. I do not hand my voting card to anybody
else. And to say that, well, the Democrats were abusive so we should
not give them adequate time to read and review the bill, so we are
going to do the same thing, I voted against those reconciliation bills
when we had a Republican President and a Democratic Congress, and they
kept shoving them through here and we did not have to read them.
I even signed a pledge never to vote for another one unless we were
given a minimum of 24 hours to read it. No one has been given 24 hours
to read however many thousand pages there are, and I do not know,
because there is no index and it is not numbered. But it is probably a
couple of thousand pages. Makes amazing changes.
I would ask the gentleman if he is particularly familiar with the
cuts in veterans. We have an aging veterans population, and by the year
2002 we are going to see a reduction of $4.1 billion in veterans
benefits in the year 2002 to achieve this theoretically balanced budget
or, if one wanted to be more cynical, to finance tax cuts for the
wealthy, a 19-percent cut.
How is it we are going to reduce veterans benefits with a
dramatically aging veterans population, not just the World War II
people and the Korean war vets, my own generation, the Vietnam
generation, is beginning to develop aging problems. We cannot do it. It
will not work.
We are not going to debate those veterans provisions here on the
floor. We are not going to debate the merits of them. We are not going
to be given time to even examine them. It took me a while to find them
in this pile.
Let us talk about the Social Security administrative costs. Social
Security is underfunded for administration, and it is paid for out of
the trust fund. It is paid for out of the trust fund, yet we are going
to cut Social Security administrative costs by 25 percent. So the next
time that your mom or dad or your grandparents or the gentleman from
New York [Mr. Solomon] in a few years tries to find out what has
happened to their Social Security check, they are going to be put on
indefinite hold. Right now it takes 3 months on the average to process
a claim.
Under this legislation, it is going to take 6 months or 9 months, and
with an aging population, who knows how bad it will get?
These are not the places to cut the budget. They are not fair cuts.
In fact, I do not believe these cuts will ever be made. In fact, under
this bill the deficit gets larger next year for the first time in 5
years. Is that not ironic? We are going to balance the Federal budget,
but the deficit has been going down since 1992. Under this for the
first time since 1992, the deficit goes on.
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether the gentleman is a
veteran or not, but I am a veteran. I am a member of the AARP. Half of
the AARP are made up of veterans and their families and they support
this bill, as I do very, very strongly.
Second, if you read the bill, spending on veterans programs will rise
each year with outlays increasing from 39.4 billion in fiscal year 1997
to 42.4 billion in fiscal year 2002.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from
Connecticut [Mrs. Johnson], a very respected member of the Committee on
Ways and Means.
Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of
the rule and of this budget. Together the budget and tax package we
will pass this week demonstrate that hard work and able, commonsense
leadership can balance the budget, cut taxes, and address critical
unmet needs of our people responsibly and effectively.
With this budget we have won a great victory for our children. Three
months ago people said Congress would not take action on children's
health insurance this year and we are proving them wrong today. In this
budget agreement we set aside $24 billion for a children's health
insurance program under a law that allows States to structure their
[[Page H6318]]
program to effectively reach the uninsured children of working parents.
Six million kids from working families, families who need and deserve
our help, will get that help to ensure that their children will have
the health care that they need. We have worked long and hard, and
millions of children will lead healthy lives as a result of our
bipartisan efforts today. This Congress should be proud of its
accomplishments. There is no higher priority than protecting the health
of our children.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Illinois [Mr. Gutierrez].
Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to see so many of my
colleagues so eager to vote on this spending bill. They are excited.
They cannot wait. And I know what it feels like. I know what it is like
to vote for a deficit reduction package, to vote for a bill that puts
our fiscal house in order.
I already cast my vote that makes a balanced budget a reality. None
of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have ever done so. But
I already did it. Did I sneak onto the floor last night to cast that
vote? Or is it true what they say about Chicagoans, that we vote early
and often?
Mr. Speaker, I cast that vote 4 years ago in 1993. I passed and voted
for the largest deficit reduction package in U.S. history. It was a
package that represented fairness, demanded shared sacrifice in the
name of common good asked those of us who were doing well to share in
the burden. Unfortunately those principles that just 4 short years ago
appeared to be antiquated, out of style, and politically unpopular
today, it was a package that passed without the vote of a single
solitary member of the Republican Party. In fact, rather than standing
with us in 1993, they stood and they jeered and they taunted us who
voted for it. And yet look at the facts.
It is only thanks to what we did in 1993 that we can even consider
this package today. You see, I hear a lot of my colleagues slapping
each other on the back congratulating each other for doing something
historic. Let me tell my colleagues about historic deeds and the people
who were responsible for them, our veterans, men and women who fought
for our country. And what does today's historic agreement mean to them?
It means $2.7 billion in cuts to the VA medical services, $4.1 billion
in cuts in total.
It means under this bill a low-income veteran who took a bullet or
two at Iwo Jima or in Vietnam has to make another sacrifice to help an
investor who wants to take a profit on Wall Street. It tells a veteran:
You saved us from fascism in World War II; I hope you saved up some
money, too, to pay for your health care; you are going to need it, now
in your seventies and eighties.
Vote against this rule and these spending cuts.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
Wisconsin [Mr. Obey], ranking member on the Committee on
Appropriations.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I very badly wanted to vote for this budget
deal. I had expected I would be able to because I thought that the
White House would hold out long enough to have a package that would
truly be fair to average working Americans, and I am sorry that they
did not do that.
I support three-quarters of this deal. I support the child tax
credit. I was one of the original four sponsors of that proposal with
Vice President Gore when he was then in the U.S. Senate. I am a sponsor
of the education tax breaks because I believe in them deeply. I support
the children's health care package. There is much that is going to be
good in this deal. But there are certain standards that must be met
when we are talking about distributing almost $600 billion of the
people's money.
First of all, most of that relief should go to middle-income working
families, not the economic elite of this country. Second, this bill
should be used to close rather than widen the gap in income between the
wealthiest 2 percent of the people in this society and everybody else.
Third, this should prevent the unraveling of Medicare and, last, it
should not cripple the long-term investments necessary for our country
to grow in the future.
These bills fail those tests. The most well off 5 percent of people
in the country, as demonstrated by this chart, the most well off 5
percent of the people in this country, those who make $112,000 a year
or more will gain six times as much tax relief in these bills as the 60
percent of the American people, well over a majority, who make less
than $37,000 a year. That is not fair.
The wealthiest 1 percent of people in this society who make more than
$250,000 a year will get a $16,000 tax cut under this proposal. But if
you make under $19,000 a year, on average you will have a tax increase.
That is not fair.
This package is also based on the assumptions, as have been indicated
in the past, that we will cut the Social Security administration by 25
percent over the next 5 years. We already have a 3-month backlog now in
handling Social Security cases.
Do we really believe Congress is going to vote for a package that
will extend that waiting period for a year? We are told that we are
supposed to cut health care by 16 percent over the next 5 years. The
bill which will come to the floor later today for this year is going to
raise National Institutes of Health spending by 6 percent. Are we
really going to vote to raise it this year and then to cut it by 16
percent in future years? Come on. I cannot believe this House would be
that dishonest.
Are we really going to vote to cut veterans benefits by 19 percent
over the next 5 years? I cannot believe we would be that ungrateful.
Are we really going to vote to cut community development programs by
30 percent? Seventy percent of the funding to the community development
block grant program or to FEMA for emergencies? We just raised the
budget for FEMA. Are we really going to cut it 30 percent? Come on. Get
real.
Are we really going to cut agriculture programs 23 percent over the
next 5 years? Not if you come from agricultural districts, I will bet
my colleagues. But those are the promises upon which this deficit
reduction package is based. Those are false promises. I do not believe
a majority of Members of either party will vote for those kinds of
reductions when the time comes. That means the reality of this package
in terms of the deficit is that we will be causing upward pressure, not
downward pressure on the Federal deficit.
I am sorry about this today. I am sorry that we do not even have the
chance to further examine this package. It is a national disgrace to
make decisions over the future content of the Tax Code, to make
decisions which will determine for 5 years or more what happens to
people's pocketbooks, what happens to their education, what happens to
their veterans benefits, it is unconscionable that that is going to be
made without having at least 5 hours to review what is in this package.
Who knows what other special gimmicks are wrapped into this package.
Vote against this rule. Vote against these bills tomorrow. You do not
know what is in them and you will come to regret what is hidden from
the public in all of these packages.
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Iowa
[Mr. Ganske].
Mr. GANSKE. Mr. Speaker, in 1 minute I do not have time to answer all
of the charges by the last speaker.
I would point out that we are dealing with a tax cut of about $90
billion. About $70 billion of that $90 billion over the next 5 or 6
years goes to a $500-per-child tax credit for families that earn less
than $110,000.
But I want to answer the charge that people have not had time to look
through this bill. Here is the Medicare bill. It is not like this was
just dumped on people's doorsteps last night. It is 95 to 98 percent of
this bill that has been out there for weeks. This was what the House
and the Senate passed. The great majority of this bill was agreed to
weeks ago by the administration, and the House and the Senate.
Yes, there were some differences and in the last couple weeks there
has been ample newspaper and news coverage of how we have come to a
resolution on some of those contentious issues. I am very interested in
this issue. So for those last final remaining items that were in
dispute, all we have to do is look in those sections and know what is
in the bill. For those who are interested in housing or veterans, the
same thing applies.
[[Page H6319]]
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Arizona [Mr. Hayworth].
Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman of the Committee on
Rules for this time.
I again rejoice for this debate on the House floor because once again
it points up some very important differences. I listened with great
interest to the ranking member of the Committee on Appropriations
essentially call this exercise, and I believe I am using his words
accurately, ``a national disgrace.''
{time} 1315
Mr. Speaker, I do not believe it is a national disgrace to allow hard
working people to hang onto more of their own money and send less here
to Washington. I do not believe it is a national disgrace to allow for
the reduction in the overall growth of spending, to make sure we save
and preserve programs for Americans.
That is what we are doing with this Balanced Budget Act, as we work
to preserve Medicare into the next generation, as we preserve veterans'
benefits, as we work to make sure that this Government takes less money
out of the pockets of working Americans, to allow them to keep more of
their money to save, spend and invest as they see fit.
The fact that over 70 percent of these tax cuts go to families making
under $75,000 is not disgraceful, it is the truth, and it is good for
the American people.
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Claremont, CA [Mr. Dreier], the vice chairman of the Committee on
Rules, one of the most distinguished and respected Members of this
body.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend, the gentleman from New
York [Mr. Solomon] for yielding me this time.
It is very clear Bill Clinton will, by virtue of supporting this
measure, be leaving one of the greatest Republican legacies in recent
history, and we are very proud to be able to play a strong role in
bringing that opportunity about.
This debate that has been going on has to do with whether or not
Members have utilized Speakernews.House.Gov. When I last stood here, I
said that it was on line. Obviously, I was a real visionary. It was
about to be on line, and it now is there and available.
I did speak a little too soon, but the fact of the matter is
virtually everyone has been following this debate. The Democratic
Caucus and the Republican Conference have been discussing this measure
for a long period of time. We have had hearings, we have had debates on
these issues for years in some cases.
I am particularly proud of several of the provisions that are
included in this balanced budget agreement. One of them includes
390,000 demonstration cases for medical savings accounts. As we were
discussing this up in the Committee on Rules earlier this morning, I
mentioned the fact our former colleague French Slaughter and I, 12
years ago, introduced legislation called the health care savings
account.
It was modeled after a package put together by the Center for Policy
Analysis in Dallas, TX, and it actually was designed to be a successor
to Medicare, because even more than a decade ago we were looking at the
problems of Medicare and pursuing the idea of health care savings
accounts. So I am hoping that these 390,000 demonstration cases will be
a real plus and a benefit as we look at baby boomers moving toward
retirement and the health care costs for retirees.
One of the other provisions that I think is very important is what is
called the Disproportionate Share Hospital funding formula, known as
DSH. It is not perfect from the perspective of a Californian, but I
believe it goes a long way toward addressing a number of the very
important concerns.
Mr. Speaker, I also want to point to this issue, which a number of us
have been very sensitive to, specifically on our side of the aisle the
gentleman from Florida [Mr. Diaz-Balart], the gentlewoman from Florida
[Ms. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen], and a number of us from California, and that
has to do with legal immigrants who could conceivably be thrown off of
SSI. I believe as we look at the fact that a legal immigrant clearly is
to have a sponsor, we did not want to see those who were elderly or
infirm in any way jeopardized. This agreement addresses that.
Most important, it gets us right on to that glidepath toward a
balanced budget, and I believe we have a very, very good opportunity to
do that. That is why this is a great day for both the Republican and
the Democratic Parties and all of the American people, and I urge
strong support of the rule and then support for this package, and
tomorrow the greatest tax cut that we have had in 16 years. I anxiously
look forward to supporting that.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
If the previous question is defeated, Mr. Speaker, I will offer an
amendment to increase the debate time to 3 hours. Everybody is calling
this measure an historic agreement. With only 90 minutes of debate, Mr.
Speaker, there will not be much of an historical record.
Republicans refuse to give us sufficient time to read it; they should
at least give us time to discuss it. So I ask that my amendment be
printed in the Record immediately before the vote on the previous
question, and I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous
question so that I may offer that amendment.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Earlier in the debate I mentioned that Ronald Reagan and this Member
of Congress used to be John F. Kennedy Democrats until the Democrat
Party abandoned Kennedy's principles and moved so far to the left.
I vividly recall back in 1962 that President John F. Kennedy, in
introducing his tax cut plan to the American people, he, President
Kennedy, stated, and this is a quote, ``Prosperity is the real way to
balance the budget. By lowering tax rates, by increasing jobs and
incomes, we can expand tax revenues and finally bring our budget into
balance.''
President Kennedy was right then and the bills before us today are
right also. Members should come to this floor, cast their vote to cut
taxes, to cut spending, to balance the budget, to save Medicare and,
most of all, to shrink the size and the power of this Federal
Government.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the
previous question on the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore [Mr. Boehner]. The question is on ordering
the previous question.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not
present.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
Pursuant to the provisions of clause 5 of rule XV, the Chair
announces that he will reduce to a minimum of 5 minutes the period of
time within which a vote by electronic device, if ordered, will be
taken on the question of agreeing to the resolution.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 226,
nays 197, not voting 11, as follows:
[Roll No. 343]
YEAS--226
Aderholt
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baker
Ballenger
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Bereuter
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bliley
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Brady
Bunning
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canady
Cannon
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth
Christensen
Coble
Coburn
Collins
Combest
Cook
Cooksey
Cox
Crane
Crapo
Cubin
Cunningham
Davis (VA)
Deal
DeLay
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Doolittle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
English
Ensign
Everett
Ewing
Fawell
Foley
Fowler
Fox
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Goode
Goodlatte
Goodling
Goss
Graham
Granger
Greenwood
Gutknecht
Hansen
Harman
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hill
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoekstra
[[Page H6320]]
Horn
Hostettler
Hulshof
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Istook
Jenkins
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kasich
Kelly
Kim
King (NY)
Kingston
Klug
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Lazio
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Livingston
LoBiondo
Lucas
Manzullo
McCarthy (NY)
McCrery
McDade
McHugh
McInnis
McKeon
Metcalf
Mica
Miller (FL)
Molinari
Moran (KS)
Morella
Myrick
Nethercutt
Neumann
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Oxley
Packard
Pappas
Parker
Paul
Paxon
Pease
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Quinn
Radanovich
Ramstad
Redmond
Regula
Riggs
Riley
Rogan
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roukema
Royce
Ryun
Salmon
Sanford
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaefer, Dan
Schaffer, Bob
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Shimkus
Shuster
Skeen
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (OR)
Smith (TX)
Smith, Linda
Snowbarger
Solomon
Souder
Spence
Stearns
Stump
Sununu
Talent
Tauscher
Tauzin
Taylor (NC)
Thomas
Thornberry
Thune
Tiahrt
Traficant
Upton
Walsh
Wamp
Watkins
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
White
Whitfield
Wicker
Wolf
Young (FL)
NAYS--197
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baesler
Baldacci
Barcia
Barrett (WI)
Becerra
Bentsen
Berman
Berry
Bishop
Blumenauer
Bonior
Borski
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Capps
Cardin
Carson
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Condit
Conyers
Costello
Coyne
Cramer
Cummings
Danner
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dellums
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Doyle
Edwards
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fazio
Filner
Flake
Ford
Frank (MA)
Frost
Furse
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Gordon
Green
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hamilton
Hastings (FL)
Hefner
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Holden
Hooley
Hoyer
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
John
Johnson (WI)
Johnson, E.B.
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind (WI)
Kleczka
Klink
Kucinich
LaFalce
Lampson
Lantos
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lofgren
Lowey
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Manton
Markey
Martinez
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McDermott
McGovern
McHale
McIntyre
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek
Menendez
Millender-McDonald
Miller (CA)
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Mollohan
Moran (VA)
Murtha
Nadler
Neal
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Pickett
Pomeroy
Poshard
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roemer
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sawyer
Schumer
Scott
Serrano
Sherman
Sisisky
Skaggs
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith, Adam
Snyder
Spratt
Stabenow
Stark
Stenholm
Stokes
Strickland
Stupak
Tanner
Taylor (MS)
Thompson
Thurman
Tierney
Torres
Towns
Turner
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Wexler
Weygand
Wise
Woolsey
Wynn
Yates
NOT VOTING--11
Blagojevich
Bryant
Fattah
Foglietta
Forbes
Gonzalez
Houghton
McCollum
McIntosh
Schiff
Young (AK)
{time} 1339
Mrs. KENNELLY of Connecticut changed her vote from ``yea'' to
``nay.''
So the previous question was ordered.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Boehner). The question is on the
resolution.
The resolution was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________